THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
may 1920
volume 6 - number 5
MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO
WERE MASONS
STEPHEN DECATUR
BY BRO. GEO. W. BAIRD, P. G. M., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
ONE OF the idols of
the Navy was Captain Stephen Decatur, who lost his life in a duel in 1820. There
were two Stephens of the surname Decatur - father and son. The elder served
faithfully and well during the War of the Revolution, was a member of Veritas
Lodge No. 16, in Maryland, and later a member of St. John's Lodge No. 20, also
located in the same State. The Decaturs were Huguenots, and of French descent.
Stephen Decatur II, is
the subject of this essay. He was born in Maryland in 1779, and initiated into
St. John's Lodge October 12th, 1799, at Newport, Rhode Island. We are indebted
to Brother Gilbert Patten Brown for this Masonic record.
Stephen Decatur II was
appointed a Midshipman in 1798, and served with distinction under Captain Barry,
Captain Bainbridge and Captain Dale. While under the command of Captain
Valentine Morris, Lieutenant Decatur became active against the Barbary Pirates,
those wolves of the Mediterranean who had been for ages levying tribute on every
sail that passed in or out of the straits. Gibraltar itself gets its name (Gib-al-Taric)
from a famous chief of the pirates, and the word "tariff" comes from Tarifa, the
seaport where these robbers made their headquarters. It was strange that
European governments sanctioned this high-sea tariff, and it is equally strange
that a new government should be the first to forcibly oppose it. But this
followed so soon upon the war with France (for it was a de facto war) when our
Commissioner, Pinkney, said to the French Deputies, "Millions for defense, but
not one cent for tribute," that it was thought worth while to "buck" a second
time.
Like Paul Jones,
Decatur was said to be the pink of politeness, courteous, punctillious and
courtly, but it was an easy matter for him to be led into a quarrel. He was one
of the best seamen of his day, and it was a time when sail was the propelling
power and the importance of proficiency in seamanship could not be
over-estimated.
Decatur was a man of
correct judgment; he neither over nor under estimated his adversary. His plan
for cutting out and destroying the Philadelphia (one of our frigates captured by
the Barbarians) was admirable, and it was wholly executed by himself. So
successful was the plan that it at once brought him into the limelight. And it
was also so successful in disturbing the balance of the Barbarians that they
were, from that time, practically out of the grafting business. A grateful
Congress voted Decatur a sword, two months' pay and a Captain's commission, and
two months' pay was also voted to the officers and seamen engaged with him.
Later he took part in
an allied attack on a flotilla of gun boats, which he boarded, and, in a
hand-to-hand fight, conquered the enemy. A Tropolitan Captain killed Decatur's
brother, a Lieutenant, but soon thereafter Stephen crossed swords with that
pirate and killed him. Out of eighty men who opposed Decatur that day, fifty-two
were killed or wounded, while Decatur's loss was but fourteen.
The War terminated in
1805 and Decatur was inactive until the War of 1812. In that war he commanded a
frigate, and captured the Macedonian in a desperate fight. Decatur found a
strong enemy, but conquered him. For this victory Congress voted him a gold
medal. He also captured the Hornet, but soon the enemy appeared in such force
that Decatur, with his squadron, found it prudent to remain in the sounds of
Long Island rather than to go out upon the open sea. Finally, however, he was
cornered and captured by a superior force. After his parole he was obliged to
face a court of inquiry, which honorably acquitted him.
Decatur commanded a
fleet of three ships in 1815, in the Mediterranean, when he fell in with the
Algerine frigate Mashouda, taking the Algerine Admiral Rais Hammida and nearly
one hundred of his officers and men besides nearly four hundred other prisoners.
On board Decatur's flagship, the Guerriere, there were fourteen killed and
wounded.
In 1815 Decatur was
appointed Navy Commissioner, which office he held until his death, which
occurred in a duel with Commodore Barron. Barron had been Decatur's commander
and they had been very close friends. But during the war with Great Britain,
while Barron was in Europe Decatur saw the urgent need for his return and was
irritated at Barron's delay. The real reason, as afterwards discovered, was that
Barron had not the necessary funds for his return trip. Decatur made some
disparaging remarks about the delay, which reached Barron's ears. He might have
stood these remarks from some one for whom he had not such an intimate liking,
but from Decatur who had been so near and dear to him, he could not stand them,
and so challenged Decatur to a duel.
They fought on the
district line between the District of Columbia and Maryland, on a spot called
the "Bladensburg Duelling Ground" because of so many duels having been fought
there. Both fell at the first fire, Barron severely and Decatur mortally
wounded.
Decatur's body was
placed in a vault in Washington until 1846 when it was removed to St. Peter's
Protestant Episcopal Churchyard, in Philadelphia, where the beautiful fluted
column, with a Tuscan cap, and on a cubic plinthe, marks the spot. The column is
surmounted by an American eagle, emblem of freedom. The eagle is seen poising
upon the globe. Perhaps the artist hoped for this emblem of freedom to extend
its influence over the whole globe. Surely no greater champion of freedom ever
trod the globe than he who rests beneath this beautiful column.
WASHINGTON’S MASONIC CONNECTIONS
BY BRO. ARTHUR M. ELLIS, CALIFORNIA
The historical data herewith presented bearing on the
Masonic connections of Brother George Washington is of particular value to the
Craft in that it has been obtained from sources entirely independent of Masonic
records or traditions.
JOHN ADAMS, President
of the United States, wrote a letter June 22, 1798, more than a year prior to
Washington's death, in which he spoke of Warren of Massachusetts, and other
Masons, adding "Such examples as these and a greater still in my venerable
predecessor would have been sufficient to induce me to hold the Institution and
Fraternity in esteem and honor as favorable to the support of civil authority,
if I had not known their love of the fine arts, their delight in hospitality,
and devotion to humanity."
This contemporaneous
endorsement of Masonry and the unqualified recognition that Washington's
connection with the fraternity was sufficient warrant for giving approbation to
it do not serve to quiet the clamors of the enemies of Masonry. There are yet
persons of influence who declare that Washington discarded Masonry before the
Revolutionary war. One of them recently stated in print, "The Alexandria, Va.,
lodge has no claim on him, nor has any other subsequent to 1768."
Masons are possessed
of sources of information that serve to make such statements ridiculous, but a
resort to Masonic records and traditions is of little avail with the hostile
profane. There seems to have been no serious attempt to examine the matter from
the standpoint of the unbiased historian. What proofs, if any, are there apart
from the records and documents under the control of Masonic lodges, that
Washington was a constant adherent to the Craft throughout his life and that it
continued to receive his approval and support ?
There are two
important sources, which are not Masonic, which are not now and which never have
been, under Masonic control, and which are available to those who seek the
truth. The first is the collection of Washington's correspondence in the Library
of Congress; the second is the newspapers of Washington's time. The contents of
these are set forth in Sachse's Masonic Correpondence of Washington and in
Pennsylvania Sesqui-Centennial Celebration of 1902 but no attempt has ever been
made to critically consider these and other public evidences in a group by
themselves, and to appraise their weight as such independent proof.
In 1834 and 1849 the
United States Government purchased large portions of Washington's papers from
his family. These were stored in the Department of State until 1903. They were
then transferred to the Library of Congress and first became available to the
historian. Amongst them are many letter books in which the secretaries employed
by Washington placed copies of letters and replies. There are also original
drafts of various letters entirely in the handwriting of Washington himself.
An examination of
these documents and other data such as stand entirely free from every
possibility of contamination or bias through connection with the Craft discloses
the following:
The General
Advertiser, a newspaper published in Philadelphia, in its issue of Saturday,
January 2, 1779, gives a full account of the public celebration of St. John's
Day, Dec. 28, 1778. Washington is there named as having been the seventh person
in the order of the procession. Three hundred brethren marched in great
solemnity to Christ Church.
Elkanah Watson, who
afterward served this country as an agent in France, delivered a large quantity
of gunpowder to Washington at Cambridge in 1775 when need of it was critical.
The acquaintance thus begun was never dropped. In 1782 Watson and his partner
Cassoul sent a highly ornamented Masonic apron to Washington from France. In his
memoirs, published in 1856, (page 135), Watson quotes the letter with which they
transmitted the apron. In it they. speak of Washington as being "a brother" and
subscribe themselves as having "the favor to be by all the known members your
affectionate brothers."
The original draft of
Washington's reply to this, all in the handwriting of Washington, is in the
Library of Congress. Amongst other things he uses in it the following
expression: "For your affectionate vows permit me to be grateful and offer mine
for true Brothers in all parts of the world." The original letter is owned by
the Grand Lodge of New York, but the draft has never been in the possession or
control of any Masonic organization.
The Pennsylvania
Packet, published in Philadelphia, in its issue of July 13, 1784, reads:
"Alexandria, July 1.
On Thursday, the 24th ult. the brethren of Lodge No. 39 met at their lodge room
to celebrate the Festival of St. John the Baptist, . . . after which they walked
in procession accompanied by their illustrious brother his excellency General
Washington to Mr. Wise's tavern, where they dined and spent the remainder of the
day in enjoyments becoming their benevolent and respectable institution."
In Washington's diary,
Feb. 12, 1785, appears this:
"Received an
Invitation to the Funeral of Willm Ramsay, Esqr. of Alexandria - the oldest
Inhabitt of the Town; & went up - walked in procession as a free mason - Mr.
Ramsay in his life time being one & now buried with the ceremony
&
honors due to one."
In 1789 Washington
became President, the capitol then being New York. Rhode Island kept out of the
Union until the following year. It then acquiesced. In order to cement the
friendly feeling Washington then made the first Presidential tour and he visited
Newport. Many different bodies there paid their respects to him. King David's
Lodge presented a written address which most unequivocally was limited to
fraternal relations. It read:
“To George Washington,
President of the United States of America. We the Master, Wardens and Brethren
of King David's Lodge in New Port Rhode Island with joyful hearts embrace this
opportunity to greet you as a Brother, and to hail you welcome to Rhode
Island.... We felicitate ourselves in the honor done the brotherhood by your
many exemplary virtues and emanations of goodness proceedil from a heart worthy
of possessing the ancient mysteries
of our Craft; being persuaded that
the wisdom and grace wit which heaven has endowed you, will square all your
thoughts, words, and actions by the eternal laws of honour equity, and truth, so
as to promote the advancement of all good works, your own happiness, and that of
mankind.
"Permit us then,
illustrious Brother, cordially to salute you with three times three and to add
our fervent supplications that the sovereign architect of the universe may
always encompass you with his holy protection."
Washington's reply is
as follows in part: "Being persuaded that a just application of the principles
which the Masonic Fraternity is founded, must be promotive of private virtue and
public prosperity, I shall always be happy to advance the interests of the
Society, and to be considered by them as a deserving brother." The original
address and letter are in the collection of the Boston Athenaeum. They were
published in the Newport Herald, August 26, 1790. A copy of each is in Letter
Book II, fols. 27-29, Library of Congress, in the handwriting of William
Jackson, Wasington's Secretary.
In 1791 Washington
went on his second Presidential tour throughout the South.
St. John's Lodge,
Newbern, North Carolina, presented him an address on his arrival there
April 20, 1791. In it they speak of him as a "true and faithful brother, the
skilful and expert craftsman, the just and upright man." In his reply Washington
spoke of the Masonic organization as being "a fraternity whose association
is founded in justice and benevolence." Copies of both address and answer are in
Letter Book II, folios 47-49, Library of Congress, in the handwriting of William
Jackson.
Prince George's Lodge
of Georgetown, South Carolina, presented him a somewhat similar address, April
30, 1791. In it they said among other things:
"We behold in you . .
. a Brother of our most ancient and most honorable Order . . ." In reply,
Washington said in part, " . . . I am much obliged by your good wishes and
reciprocate them with sincerity, assuring the fraternity of my esteem. I request
them to believe that I shall always be ambitious of being considered a deserving
Brother."
These are entered in
Letter Book II, fols. 60-61, in Jackson's handwriting.
The Grand Master of
South Carolina was General Mordecai Gist. He had been a Brigadier General and
Master of Military Lodge No. 27 in the Maryland line. He wrote an address in
behalf of the Grand Lodge, May 2, 1791. In a portion of it he said:
"When we contemplate
the distresses of war, the instances of humanity displayed by the Craft afford
some relief to the feeling mind; and it gives us the most pleasing sensation to
recollect, that amidst the difficulties attendant on your late military
stations, you still associated with, and patronized the Ancient Fraternity.
Distinguished always by your virtues more than the exalted stations in which you
have moved, we exult in the opportunity you now give us of hailing you brother
of our Order, and trust from your knowledge of our institution, to merit your
countenance and support."
Washington in his
reply made two positive statements that should be carefully noted. One
was "I recognize with pleasure my relation
to the brethren of your Society, and I accept with gratitude your
congratulations on my arrival in South Carolina. Your sentiments on the
establishment and exercise of our equal government are worthy of an association,
whose principles lead to purity of morals, and are beneficial of action."
The other was: "I
shall be happy, on every occasion to evince my regard for the Fraternity."
Copies of the address
and reply are in the Library of Congress in the handwriting of Jackson. The
address was printed in the Charleston City Gazette, May 6, 1791.
A somewhat similar
address was made by the Grand Lodge of Georgia and it was replied to by
Washington briefly in the same general manner. Copies in Jackson's handwriting
are in Letter Book II, fols. 77 and 78.
After 1792 the capitol
was Philadelphia. On Jan. 3, 1792, the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania presented him
an address in which they declare it is done "in the pride of Fraternal
affection," and express the hope that Washington "may be long continued to adorn
the bright list of master workmen which our Fraternity produces in the
terrestrial Lodge."
Washington's
introductory sentence in reply was:
"Gentlemen and Brothers, I receive your kind
congratulations with the purest sensations of fraternal affection."
The address and reply
are copied in Letter Book II, fols. 104-105 by Dandridge, Secretary to the
President.
The Massachusetts
Grand Lodge in the same year addressed him, saying amongst other things that
they had dedicated their Book of Constitution to him, being "convinced of his
attachment to its cause, and readiness to encourage its benevolent designs."
In his reply
Washington speaks of the lodge as "a Society whose liberal principles must be
founded in the immutable laws of truth and justice," and says further, "To
enlarge the sphere of social happiness is worthy the benevolent design of a
Masonic institution." Copies of both address and reply are in Letter Book II,
fols. 106-108 in the handwriting of Dandridge.
On September 18, 1793,
the cornerstone of the capitol building at Washington was laid by Washington in
concert with the Grand Lodge of Maryland, and Lodge No. 22 from Alexandria,
Virginia. Washington wore the apron which had been presented to him by
Lafayette. Numerous accounts of this great Masonic event are in existence. The
Maryland Gazette of Annapolis, Sept. 26, 1793, states that the cornerstone was
laid by Washington, and on it was deposed corn, wine and oil. The New York
Journal and Patriotic Register of Oct. 19, 1793, speaks of the Masonic
procession as having been brilliant. The account given in Columbian Mirror and
Alexandria Gazette in its issue of Sept. 25, 1793, has been adopted by the
official accounts of the laying of the corner stone issued by the United States
Government - House Document No. 211, 1896, Hundredth Anniversary of Capitol, p.
121 et seq.; History of U. S. Capitol - Senate Document No. 60, 1900, Vol. I, p.
14 et seq. This account states that Washington wore the Masonic apron given to
him by Lafayette, that he acted as Grand Master pro. tem. and that the corner
stone was laid by him "and his attendant brethren.
In December, 1796, the
Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania addressed Washington, the occasion being the
publication of his intention to retire from public life. In his reply he
addresses them as "Brothers" and says in part: "I have received your address
with all the feelings of brotherly affection, mingled with those sentiments for
the Society, which it was calculated to excite." The address and reply are
copied in Letter Book III, pp. 244-245, in the handwriting of G. W. Craik, his
secretary.
In March, 1797,
Washington retired from the presidency and returned to Mt. Vernon. Lodge 22
thereupon invited him to a Masonic dinner and also presented him an address in
writing. Washington attended the lodge April 1, 1797. His answer was then read
in open lodge. The introductory portion of it runs: "Brothers of the Ancient
York Masons of Lodge No. 22: While my heart acknowledges with Brotherly Love
your affectionate congratulations on my retirement from the arduous toils of
past years, my gratitude is no less excited by your kind wishes for my future
happiness.'
The letter of the
lodge, the address and Washington's reply are copied in Letter Book II, folios
294-295, in the handwriting of Tobias Lear, Washington's Secretary. Claypool's
American Daily Advertiser of Philadelphia, in its issue of April 11, 1797, gives
an account of the meeting of Lodge 22. After the meeting an "elegant" dinner was
had. At this Washington offered the toast, "The Lodge at Alexandria, and all
Masons throughout the world."
In the same month the
Grand Lodge of Massachusetts forwarded an affectionate address to Washington,
signed by Paul Revere, Grand Master. The delivery of this was delayed for some
unexplained reason. On its receipt Washington at once forwarded to Revere a
letter of apology for his delay in answering. He also wrote a most careful and
significant letter to the Grand Lodge. The original draft of this letter,
entirely in the handwriting of Washington himself, containing several
interlineations and modifications in his own hand, is in the collection of
manuscripts in the Library of Congress. In this he addresses the members of the
Grand Lodge as "Brothers." One of the significant statements contained in it is
the following: "My attachment to the Society of which we are members will
dispose me always to contribute my best endeavours to promote the honor and
interest of the Craft." He concludes the letter with the following: "With the
assurance of fraternal regard and best wishes for the honor, happiness &
prosperity of all the members of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts."
In 1798 trouble with
France had reached such a stage that Congress ordered an army to be raised and
made Washington Lieut.-General. In November he was in Baltimore and the Grand
Lodge of Maryland presented him an address in which they stated that it was "the
greatest boast of their Society, that a Washington openly avows himself a member
of it and thinks it worthy of his approbation." The draft of Washington's reply,
sent from Elkton, Maryland, Nov. 8, 1798, is in the Library of Congress. He
addresses the members of the Grand Lodge as "Gentlemen & Brothers." In it he
makes the following unqualified declaration:
"So far as I am acquainted with the principles and
doctrines of Freemasonry, I conceive them to be founded on benevolence, and to
be exercised for the good of mankind; I cannot, therefore, upon this ground
withhold my approbation of it."
It is subscribed thus:
“I am, Gentlemen and Brothers,
Very respectfully
Your most ob't servant."
The Maryland letter
was Washington's last written communication bearing upon Masonry. His funeral,
as is admitted everywhere, was a Masonic one. Dr. E. C. Dick, Master, and Rev.
James Muir, D. D., Chaplain of Lodge 22, performed the funeral ceremonies. The
General's apron was on the casket together with his sword. Details as to the
funeral were published broadcast throughout the country.
Opponents of the Craft
have sought to make capital of a letter written by Washington to Rev. G. W.
Snyder in 1798 prior to his letter to the Grand Lodge of Maryland. They
overlooked his second letter to Snyder, Oct. 24, 1798, in which he reiterates
his faith in Masonic lodges. Rev. Snyder had written to Washington and charged
that "some of the lodges in the United States" had caught the infection and
cooperated with the Illuminati and Jacobins. He further said that he thought
Washington might block the progress in "the English lodges over which you
preside." The term "English lodge" had a meaning at that time as distinctive and
well-recognized as contrasted with American Lodges as now are the York Rite and
Scottish Rite. Immediately after the American revolution a movement was started
to withdraw the lodges of this country entirely from allegiance to the English
Grand Lodges. Many of the lodges, however, insisted on retaining their English
charters and it was several decades before the American lodges had full
possession of the field. There were three "English lodges" in Quebec until very
recently, as contrasted with the great number of "Quebec" lodges." Hence, when
Washington wrote that Snyder was in error as to his presiding over the "English
lodges" and that he had not been in one more than once or twice in thirty years
he was literally correct. Such statements were called for in his reply as
naturally as would a similar answer be prompted now from a member of a
Commandery who had never had any connection with the Scottish Rite if he were
urged to take some action with respect to the activities of the Scottish Rite.
Washington was urged by Snyder to act in the "English lodges."
The details available
from Masonic sources which cover the skeleton of fact above outlined and give to
Washington's Masonic connection its life and color are far more important than
the dry memoranda here set forth. It may be serviceable, however, to many
readers to have at hand the foregoing succinct statement of indisputable facts
established in complete independence of any Masonic connection or influence that
show the unreserved recognition by Washington of his Masonic affiliation and
also his unqualified approbation of the fraternity throughout his life.
-------o------
ON THE WAY
--------------
BY BRO. G. A. NANCARROW, INDIANA
--------------
As we travel on our journey
From our morning to
our night,
Touching flowers by
the wayside,
Sometimes losing in
the fight;
As we taste of joy and
sorrow,
Zeal and languor, love
and hate,
Let us know, my
wayside brother,
That there is no
kinder fate.
When our Parent came to planning
What His children here
should do,
He, in wisdom, gave us
labor-
Some for me and some
for you;
Knowing well that, big
and little,
Human hands will shape
or mar
Just as idle boys make
mischief
And the idle monarchs
war.
By our labors we must progress
On the rugged road we
climb;
By our effort and
endeavor
Live a growing life
through time.
For this stop is but a
moment
Twixt the life that we
have done,
And another in the
cycle
Of our evolution's
run.
Would we in the life to follow
Find a higher plane
than here;
Would we walk above
the level
We are treading in
this sphere;
We must earn our fee
of entrance
E'er we knock upon the
door;
We must pay the price
in labor
Or move backwards from
this shore.
God holds out His hand to aid us
Up the steeps that we
must climb
Through this vale of
failing effort
Toward that promised
life sublime.
Let us grasp the hand
He offers
Sending one hand down
below,
To pull up some
fainting brother
With a longer way to
go.
--------o------
Good citizenship
implies more than a mere negative goodness, merely refraining from law-breaking
of any sort. Duties of a positive nature are imposed and these are incumbent
upon us as a part of our Masonic obligation. It can be insisted that we are
bound, even more than others, to support the institutions of the Republic and to
uphold the American ideal and principles. That such institutions and principles
are akin, in very essence, to the ideas and ideal of Masonry, is plain to those
within and without the Fraternity. - Robert Sterling Teague, P. G. M. Alabama.
---------o--------
The crown of all
faculties is common sense; it is not enough to do the right thing, it must be
done at the right time and place. Talent knows what to do; tact knows when and
how to do it.
- W. Matthews.
THE CRYPTIC DEGREES
By Bro. GUSTAV A. EITEL, MARYLAND
PART III
FROM Moore's Free Masons Monthly Magazine for November,
1848, we have the following account of the introduction of the Royal and Select
Masters' Degrees, by Albert G. Mackey, M. D., whom we in have come to consider
authority on all Masonic subjects upon which he writes:
"The proper jurisdiction under which the Degrees of Royal
and Select Master should be placed is a question that is now beginning to excite
considerable discussion and much embarrassment among the fraternity. It is,
therefore, the duty of every brother who wishes this 'questio vexata' amicably
and judiciously, settled, to communicate to his brethren whatever he may suppose
will conduce to this 'consummation most devoutly to be wished.' Allow me to
throw in my mite. "The history of these degrees will show that the Chapters
and Councils are now contending for that to which neither ever had any
legitimate right. And it seems to me that the former are as much justified in
taking the jurisdiction of these degrees from the latter, as these were in
taking it some years ago from the administrative body of the Ancient and
Accepted Rite, to which it originally belonged. The controversy terminates in a
contest for the distribution of the spoils of war.
"These degrees of right belong to the Supreme Council of
the 33d Degree, Ancient Scottish Rite, and the claim to them has never been
abandoned by that body. At the establishment of the Grand Council of Princes of
Jerusalem, in Charleston, S. C., on the 20th February, 1788, by brothers Joseph
Myers, Barend M. Spitzer and A. Forst, Deputy Inspectors-General of Frederick
II., of Prussia, Myers deposited in the archives of the Council certified copies
of the said degrees from Berlin, in Prussia, placing them at the same time under
the care and jurisdiction of this body. Copies of these degrees are still
retained in the archives of the Supreme Grand Council at Charleston."
(Brother Mackey then refers to the communication sent by
the Grand Chapter of Maryland to the Grand Chapter of South Carolina, and its
action there-on as quoted elsewhere, in which an adverse report was made by the
committee, and the Grand Chapter decided that it was improper and inexpedient to
issue a jurisdiction of these degrees, and thus interfere with the rights and
privileges of their brethren and companions in another and higher order of Free
Masonry.) Continuing, he says:
"The Supreme Council for the Southern States has never
abandoned its claim to these degrees. It has organized Councils of Royal and
Select Masters, in other States, as, for instance, in Mississippi and South
Carolina, either directly, or through the intervention of its subordinate
Councils of Princes of Jerusalem, and although no application has lately been
made to this body for a charter for a Royal and Select Council, I see not how,
without impairing its rights, it could refuse to grant a charter when applied
for by 'true and trusty' persons. In fact, the degrees continue to be given by
our Inspectors, and as there are now no Royal and Select Councils in South
Carolina, the old ones being extinct, the degrees can only be obtained from such
authority. Brother Barker, who, perhaps, constituted as many Councils of Royal
and Select Masters as any other man in the United States, did so only as a
Deputy Inspector-General and the agent of the Supreme Council, and, therefore,
although I have not time to hunt up statistics, I have no hesitation in
believing that half the Councils and Grand Councils in the country owe their
existence, and with it their original allegiance, to the Ancient Scottish Rite.
"The matter, however, has now become inextricably confused,
and I know of but one method of getting out of the difficulty. Although the
Supreme Councils of the 33d are not willing to have their authority and rights
wrested from them vi et armis, I have no doubt - but I do not speak officially -
that for the good of Masonry they would willingly enter into any compromise.
Let a convention of Royal and Select Masters be held at some central point. To
this convention let the most intelligent companions, legitimately possessing the
degrees, whether from Councils of Royal and Select Masters, as in most of the
States, from Royal Arch Chapters, as in Virginia, or from Councils of Princes of
Jerusalem, or from Grand Inspectors-General, as in South Carolina and
Mississippi - let the wisdom there congregated be directed to the amicable
settlement of this dispute. The important point is not to have these degrees
placed in any particular order, but to make the mode and manner of conferring
them, whether it be before or after the Royal Arch, uniform throughout the
country. The decision made for two successive triennial meetings by the General
Grand Chapter, viz., in 1844 and 1847, as tending to destroy this uniformity and
produce 'confusion worse confounded,' can not but be regretted by all good
Masons."
It will be seen that the degrees were cultivated in South
Carolina, or at least the Select Degree, at an early date. In consequence of
the authority by which the degrees were conferred, the Grand Council system was
not recognized, but the Supreme Council was regarded as the lawful governing
power. Accordingly, in 1858 and 1859, nine Councils were chartered by that
body. In deference to the usage in other jurisdictions the Supreme Council
(Scottish Rite) waived its claims and a Grand Council was formed in Charleston
on February 15, 1860. The Minutes of this Assembly were published with the
proceedings of the Grand Chapter.
Companion George W. Warvelle, LL. D., Pas Grand Master and
Grand Recorder of the Grand Council of Illinois, is another Masonic scholar and
writer who emphatically dissents from the Scottish Rite claims and theory. For
more than a score of years he has been searching for "facts" in lieu of "fables"
and "traditions." The discoveries of his research have been presented from time
to time.
Space prevents reproducing all he has written on this
subject. One of his earlier contributions is:
GENESIS OF THE DEGREE OF ROYAL MASTER MASON
AN ADDRESS DELIVERED BEFORE THE THIRD MASS CONVENTION OF
THE ROYAL AND SELECT MASTERS OF ILLINOIS, AT PEORIA, SEPTEMBER 6, 1893.
I had found in my reading that much - nearly all - that had
been said or written upon this subject in recent years was but a repetition of
old statements made at a time when the knowledge of the Rite was very limited,
and the sources of information not as accessible as at present; that little or
no attempt was made at verification, and that, in many instances, these same old
statements, taken oftimes at second hand, had been coloured, changed or
distorted in the retelling to suit the varying fancies of the narrators. It was
the confusion created by these discordant recitals that stimulated me in the
first instance to investigate the subject for myself, and it was the facts as I
found them that induced me to communicate them to you. I entered upon this work
with neither prejudice or bias, and in my investigations I sought only to
ascertain the truth. I endeavoured, so far as I was able, to separate the real
facts from the fancies and fictions into which they had become imbedded, and to
weigh, with impartiality and fairness, the evidence that was offered in support
of the various theories which at different times have been advanced. The effect
of my inquiries was to cause a thorough revision of many of my own previously
conceived opinions concerning these degrees and the complete rejection of a
number of matters that had formerly commanded my implicit belief, and as the
conclusions which I announced were in many respects opposed to certain generally
received and hitherto unquestioned theories of origin, I have, during the year
that has intervened, continued my researches with a view to demonstrate either
their correctness or fallacy. In so doing I have necessarily expanded my field
of operations and at the same time examined with greater scrutiny the ground
already traversed, and while, in a few minor particulars, some slight changes
have been made, the general tendency of my search has only been to strengthen
the position which I assumed in my address of last year.
I have brought together for your consideration today a few
facts relating to the degree of Royal Master, some of which have only been
discovered within very recent years, and to them I append my own conclusions. If
these latter should differ from those reached by men who are older and wiser
than myself I can only say, it is with no disparagement of the thoughts or
opinions of others that I offer my own; I reason from the light that is within
me; possibly I am mistaken, but I think I am right, and so thinking I do not
hesitate to express my views.
The "high degrees" in this country, at the commencement of
the present century, may well be said to have been "without form and void." They
consisted, in the main, of a chaotic mass of pompous titles, borrowed in many
instances from extinct orders and societies, with feeble expositions of Masonic
legends strangely blended with Hermetic philosophy and weak imitations of
medieval chivalry. They were conferred with little or no attempt at ritualistic
elaboration, while the dramatic effects which constitute such conspicuous
features in the liturgies of today were practically unknown. As a rule they
were composed of nothing more than a meagre recital of traditional history,
supplemented possibly by a brief "lecture" or catechism, while many possessed
not even this amount of substance. With the exception of the Capitular degrees
no effort had been made at organization, and the warrant of a Master's lodge was
generally considered a sufficient authority to legitimatize the conferring of
any and all degrees of which any of the members might be possessed, if, as was
sometimes the ease, the conferant did not himself claim powers still greater. A
lingering recollection of the Rite of Perfection was preserved in some
localities by individuals who claimed authority under the original grant of
power to Stephen Morin and a little band of zealous Masons at Charleston, S.C.,
had vainly endeavoured about this time to assert an organized expression of the
ineffable grades of that system under the name of Ancient Accepted Scottish
Rite, while a rival society, with the same object in view, was soon afterwards
started in New York. The best efforts of both bodies were, however, productive
of but little in the way of tangible results, and it was not until fifty years
afterwards that the matchless genius of Albert Pike gave shape and purpose to
the Scottish Rite.
Among the many degrees that ambition or avarice brought
into existence or rescued from oblivion about this time was that of Royal Master
Mason. From whence it was derived or how it originated we know absolutely
nothing, and though there has not been wanting astute historians to trace its
genealogy and declare its primary symbolism, no proof has yet been offered to
substantiate the statements or support the theories which these ingenious
gentlemen have advanced.
While the "high degrees" of every kind and nature were
conferred indiscriminately by any person who might see fit to arrogate a power
for that purpose, yet they were in the main dispensed by a number of gentlemen
who posed under the dignified title of Inspectors General and who claimed
absolute dominion over the entire Masonic world as "Princes and Chiefs of
Exalted Masonry." The authority for this broad claim rested upon a delegation of
power said to have been transmitted from Frederick II of Prussia at various
times subsequent to the year 1762, and upon the assumption that Frederick
himself possessed "the sovereign Masonic power over the craft." (4) With these
claims or pretensions we as Cryptic Masons would have little or no concern were
it not that certain high dignitaries of the system which was established upon
the remains of the defunct Rite of Perfection have at various times asserted a
right of control or dominion over all of the Cryptic degrees, and that these
claims have been wholly relinquished only within very recent years. In view of
these facts an inquiry into the legitimacy of the claim is imposed upon every
one who seeks to discover origin or trace descent, yet it is not my purpose at
this time, to open the questions involved nor to discuss the subject in its
general phases, and, save as it may incidentally occur, I shall attempt no
argument with reference to Scottish Rite claims as applied to the Cryptic
degrees in general, but will briefly summarize so much thereof as refers to the
Royal Degree.
So far as I have been able to learn no Inspector of the
Rite of Perfection ever made a personal assertion of any knowledge of the Royal
degree or claimed any rights in connection therewith in virtue of his
Inspectorship; the name itself cannot be found in any of the patents, diplomas
or other documents issued in connection with that rite, although in most cases a
full enumeration of the degrees possessed by the patentee and which he was
authorized to confer were set forth in every grant of power. Nor did the
Supreme Council A.A.S.R. at its establishment in 1801 make any claim with
reference thereto, nor does the name thereof appear in any of the documents
which it issued at that time. At the institution of the Supreme Council a full
scale of degrees was adopted and announced to the Masonic world; they were
thirty-three in number, including those theretofore exclusively controlled by
the Symbolic Lodge, Their names and numerical progression were all set forth in
orderly arrangement, and over the system thus promulgated the Supreme Council
claimed original and exclusive jurisdiction. This claim, with the exception of
the Symbolic degrees, has generally been recognized as just, and for years has
been acquiesced in by the Masonic powers of both hemispheres. Of the degrees
composing the curriculum of the new rite, some - the majority - were taken from
the old Scale of the Rite of Perfection; some were appropriated from the many
"detached" degrees of the period, and some were invented for the occasion by the
framers of the system; eclecticism in Masonry was then the order of the day, (5)
and the right to appropriate and had was not seriously disputed. But the
Supreme Council asserted jurisdiction only over the regular series of degrees
which it then promulgated as its own; whatever else might have been in the
possession or within the knowledge of its members was left with them for their
disposal or use, and in the manifesto which announced its organization this fact
was distinctly stated. In that remarkable document it was said that some - not
all - of the Inspectors were it the individual possession of other degrees,
"given in different parts of the world," which they conferred at their pleasure
upon those who were high enough to understand them." (6) A partial enumeration
of such detached degrees then followed, and, while a mention is made of "Select
Masons of 27," no reference can be found to the degree of Royal Master. This
statement is the basis of the Scottish Rite claim of dominion over the Cryptic
degrees, and while it is possible that among the side degree of which "most of
the Inspectors" were in possession, there might have been that of Royal Master,
yet there is no proof that such was the fact. But even conceding that it may
have been known to some of the members it was nevertheless individual property
and the Supreme Council never officially asserted a jurisdictional right thereto
until fifty years afterwards. In 1827, ten years after the formation of Councils
and Grand Councils of the dual body of Royal and Select masters, and nearly
twenty years after the regular organization of either degree as separate bodies,
Bro. Moses Holbrook, then a high officer of the Southern Supreme Council,
reported to the Grand Chapter of South Carolina that he had ascertained that the
degrees of Royal and Select Masters were brought from Berlin, Prussia, by one
Joseph Myers in 1778, (7) and that certified copies thereof, which he had been
privileged to inspect, were deposited with the Council of the Princes of
Jerusalem at Charleston. This statement, although not emanating directly from
the Supreme Council, which at that time was practically in a moribund condition,
has formed the mainstay of all subsequent claims in which direct authority has
been sought to be asserted by that body. I have no doubt but what Bro.
Holbrook's report was made in perfect good faith and a sincere belief that what
he had ascertained was true. The period of his report was an age of credulity
in all matters connected with Masonry; myths and fictions were readily received
as incontestable facts; forgeries passed current without question, and histories
evolved from the vivid imaginations of the writers supplied the place of more
authentic data. But later years have discredited the facts upon which Bro.
Holbrook relied, and the student of today classes the Berlin constitutions in
the same category as the pious frauds of the early Christian churchmen. ln 1850,
or thereabouts, the Southern Supreme Council, at the instance of Bro. Mackey,
(8) formally assumed jurisdiction of both degrees by granting charters of
constitution, and this right was maintained until 1870, when by resolution the
Cryptic Council was recognized as "a separate and distinct organization in
Masonry," and further control over it was "relinquished." (9) There were at this
time twenty-eight Grand Councils in existence.
Neither the Grand Consistory nor Supreme Council
established at New York by Bro. Joseph Cerneau ever made any claim to the Royal
degree, notwithstanding it was so reported for many years, nor did any of its
Inspectors claim authority over the Rite. No inquiry, therefore, is raised with
respect to this body.
The Northern Supreme Council was established at New York in
1813, but not until three years after the organization of a Council of Royal
Masters in the same city. Its powers and authority were derived from the parent
body at Charleston and it professed only to exercise jurisdiction over the 33
degrees which then as now constituted the Scottish Rite. From its organization
until 1844 it was practicedly dormant, and it was not until 1860 that its
present career of activity commenced. In 1850 this body, for the first time,
asserted a claim over all of the degrees of the Cryptic Rite including the
Super-Excellent, alleging that it had been the custom "from time immemorial" to
communicate them "in the side chambers of our Holy Temple." (10) The Northern
Sup. Council at this time consisted nominally of four individuals but was
centred, in reality, in the person of Bro. James J. J. Gourgas, then a very old
and infirm man. The action of Bro. Gourgas in making this claim was doubtless
prompted by the attitude then recently taken by the Southern Sup. Council, and
while the Southern body never made any claim with respect to the
Super-Excellent, I presume Bro. Gourgas thought he might as well take all as a
part. The fiction of authority was maintained by the Northern Supreme Councils,
(11) regular and irregular, until the time of the "Union" in 1867 when by common
consent the matter was dropped and has not since been heard of.
Such, in brief, is the history of Scottish Rite claim and
dominion over the Royal degree. It was never a part of the Scottish system;
illustrates none of its symbolism; has no connection, directly or indirectly,
with any of its degrees, and no right of control, other than that which flows
from simple appropriation, has ever been shown. It is difficult at this time to
understand the reasons which prompted the leaders of that rite to retain such a
tenacious hold upon it, and the only rational explanation that can now be
advanced is that it was held under a mistake of fact and that to the imperfect
knowledge of the times must we attribute the first assumption of authority over
it.
From all that I have thus far been able to learn, I am
strongly of the opinion that the degree of Royal Master was invented during the
early part of the present century and that it had its origin at the city of New
York. If it existed prior to the year 1800 or was ever conferred at other
places no record thereof has ever been found nor is any reference made thereto
in contemporary documents. I have made a most diligent search through all the
channels of information that were at my command and have through an extensive
correspondence pushed my inquiries in every direction from whence a knowledge of
this subject might be expected. By whom it was invented we do not know, yet it
is certain that for its promotion and diffusion we are indebted to Bro. Thomas
Lownds. This fact has been placed beyond dispute by the comparatively recent
discovery of the old minute book of the Council established by Lownds at New
York, and a number of hitherto doubtful questions in connection with the early
exploitation of this degree have, by this discovery, been definitely solved.
From these old records it would seem that on Sept 2, 1810
at St. John's Hall in the city of New York, sixteen persons met and organized a
Council of Royal Master Masons, to "be known and distinguished by the name of
Columbian Grand Council." This was the first systematic effort at organization
ever made of either of the Cryptic degrees, for while Bro. Eckel, at Baltimore,
was wont to organize Councils for the purpose of conferring the Select degree,
yet such Councils seem to have been of a temporary character and for the purpose
of each particular occasion only. The fact that sixteen persons met for the
purpose above indicated establishes, as a necessary corollary, the further fact
that at this time the degree was in existence and had been conferred by other
authority and that parties were then in possession of it. This fact is further
emphasized by entries in the record of the admission of persons as "adjoining"
members. The natural inference, therefore, is that prior to the establishment
of Columbian Council, the degree like many others of that period had been
conferred by individual communication. It was for many years supposed that this
Council owed its existence to Joseph Cerneau, who at that time was a resident of
New York and an active worker in a Scottish Rite body which he had established
there. In many of the arguments which have been advanced to sustain the
Scottish Rite theory of origin, this statement has been repeatedly made as an
historical fact, and until the discovery of this record, was accepted by a
majority of the Masonic historians as true. But it now, seems that Cerneau was
never in any manner connected with this body either as an officer or member and
his name is not even mentioned once in the entire record. Nor is there the
slightest intimation that the degree was either derived from or subsidiary to
the Supreme Council of the Scottish Rite or any superior body of any kind, and,
unlike most of the Inspector's degrees which were endowed with much florid
rhetoric in the statement of the authority by which they were conferred, it
seems to have been organized in much the, same manner as the Capitular degrees
had been a few years preceding. Nor is there any reference to the Scottish Rite
with respect to qualifications for the degree which seems to have been
conferred, without regard to other affiliations, on Master Masons. Indeed, the
only titles or other matters appended to the names of the officers or members
was their rank in Symbolic Masonry or their lodge affiliation and during the
earlier years this latter is found after the names of all candidates receiving
the degree.
A strong reason for believing that Thomas Lownds was the
originator or at least the first disseminator of the Royal degree in America, is
afforded in the fact that in Columbian Council he also conferred other degrees
now totally unknown and which so far as I have been able to learn, were never
conferred by any of the Inspectors connected with the Supreme Councils either at
Charleston or New York. These degrees, in name if not in substance, were
distinctively English, and by no process of reasoning can they be connected with
the high degree systems of any of the continental rites. Thus on Dec. 7, 1810,
a Council of "Knights of the Round Table" was opened by the "Illustrious Abbot,
Lownds," (12) and on March 4, 1811, a Chapter of "Illustrious Knights of the
Hon. Order of the Garter" was opened by "Grand Prelate Lownds.", (13) it will
require no demonstrations to show that both of these diversions were the
inventions of the times, and it is but fair to ascribe them to the man who
organized this body and for more than ten years presided at every meeting
thereof.
In my address of last year I adverted to the fact that it
is to Columbian Council we are indebted for the Super-Excellent degree as a
regular part of our system. It is true that a degree bearing this name was
conferred in connection with the Royal Arch, both in England and America, as
early as 1760, and at one time I supposed the two to be identical. But since I
last addressed you I have secured copies of the rituals of both the Excellent
and Super-Excellent degrees of the old Royal Arch system and find them to be
essentially different from the present degree both in historical scope and
symbolic teaching, while an inspection of the old Royal Arch ritual, of which I
also now have a copy, demonstrates that it could have had no connection
therewith and must have been fabricated after Webb's adaptation had been made.
The inference is irresistible that it was invented in New York, probably by
Lownds himself, at or near the time when he first gave it publicity. The first
mention of the degree which I have been able to find is under date of Dec. 22,
1817, when a Super-Excellent "Lodge" was opened in "ample form" and several
Companions received. From this time forward it was regularly "worked" and finds
frequent mention in the minutes, wholly displacing in about a year after its
introduction the "Invincible Order of the Round Table."
Columbian Council, from the time of its organization until
1823, met regularly as an independent body, but in this year a Grand Council was
formed to control the degrees of Royal and Select Master, and Columbian Council
surrendering its title of "Grand," became a constituent of the new body as No. 1
of its registry.
In 1816 it would seem the Council abrogated the rule which
permitted Master Masons to receive the degree, and from this time on only Royal
Arch Masons were accepted. In December, 1817, a communication was received from
Boston, Mass., showing that a Council of Royal Masters had been established
there "within the present year," and that "they acknowledge, with much respect,
the senior establishment in New York, and with their advocates do honour to
same." They further pray for "written sanction" and "that they may be confirmed
in their Masonic labours." The sanction was granted. It would thus appear that
this Council was regarded at this time as a legitimate source of authority for
the dissemination of the degree.
In December, 1821, the Council of Select Masters,
established by Cross, petitioned Columbian Council for a union and such
proceedings were then had as resulted in a merger of the two bodies. The
minutes with respect to this interesting event are, however, extreme meagre and
perhaps "absorption" would more fitly characterize the action than any other
term that could be employed. Thereafter the Select degree was regularly
conferred in the same order as at present, but the name of the body continued to
be Columbian Council of Royal Master Masons.
On January 18, 1823, it was resolved that it was expedient
to form a "Grand Council of Royal Master Masons and Select Masons" for the State
of New York, and in pursuance of such resolution a Grand Council was on January
25 duly organized, which claimed "of right the government and superintendence of
all Royal Master Masons and Select Masons in the said State."
Such, brethren, is a rough outline of the beginning of the
Royal degree in America so far as the same is now known. To Thomas Lownds must
be ascribed the credit for its life, and to Columbian Council the honour of its
first organized existence.
In 1818, Bro. Jeremy Cross, who had previously obtained the
Select degree at Baltimore, in some manner became "possessed" of the Royal
degree as well, whereupon he joined the two together under one government and
out of the plentitudis of his own power established a new system which he
christened "Councils of Royal and Select Masters," and of which he at once
became the missionary and apostle. This (1818) is the earliest date at which
the title "Royal and Select Masters" was used, and all reference thereto at any
time anterior must now be regarded as a mistake or a fabrication.
In 1827-8, Bro. John Barker, emulating the fame and envying
the gain which Bro. Cross was acquiring as a "disseminator" of Cryptic light,
resolved to enter the field himself. As Bro. Cross had credentials from the
"Grand Council of Select" at Baltimore, which subsequent developments have
tended to show were spurious, (14) so Bro. Barker travelled as the "agent" of
the Southern Supreme Council, 33, but the authority thereof has never been shown
and is subject to much doubt. At all events neither party worked for or
accounted to any other than themselves, and the charters given by them purported
to be issued only on their own authority. In later years attempts have been
made to substantiate the claim of Scottish Rite origin and consequent
jurisdiction by the labours of Barker. As a matter of fact, however, Barker's
"agency" was simply an excuse for some show of authority. I do not understand
that he ever had a commission from the Supreme Council for this purpose. His
charters were granted in his own name and not in the name of the Supreme
Council; his rituals were modifications of the Cross lectures, and the
"emoluments" of his "agency" enriched no one but himself. It was at one time
supposed that Barker obtained his degrees from Cross, but it would now seem that
he was greeted in Columbian Council, Nov. 25, 1821, (15) receiving the degrees
from the hands of Thomas Lownds.
Through the labours of Cross, Cushman and Barker, the
degree has been preserved and disseminated, and while the methods employed by
these ancient worthies have at times been severely criticized, it must be
remembered that age and environment have much to do with the formation of
judgment and shaping of opinions. The itinerant lecturer and degree peddler was
an established feature in American Masonry until as late as 1840. His services,
never lavishly rewarded, did much to shape, protect and perpetuate the
uniformity of ritual and symbolism, and while the present age has outgrown the
crude methods of the fathers, we can well afford in the enjoyment of the legacy
they have bequeathed to us to condone their faults and forgive their
transgressions. It is immaterial at this day that they made merchandise of
degrees or sold charters on manufactured authority; they but followed the
precedents of the times. Their motives were good and presumably their wares
were worth the price which they charged, and posterity, as a rule, has done
honour to their memory.
Now one word more regarding these addresses and I have
finished. I did not expect when I addressed you last year that all of my
statements would meet with ready assent or my conclusions pass unchallenged.
Old myths die hard and men do not, as a rule, give up the convictions of a
lifetime without a protest. But nothing has more strongly characterized the
literary life of Masonry during the past twenty-five years than its freedom from
the shackles of unverified tradition and imaginative history. The love of truth,
"for truth's sake" has exerted a strong influence upon the work of the later day
historian and his active efforts have been directed in attempts to show the past
as it was and not what it should have been in order to sustain fanciful theories
or old traditions. To do this he must at times appear a veritable iconoclast,
and the worshippers at the shrines he shatters regard him with but little favour.
That my work in this respect should be criticised and questioned I fully
expected, but I was not prepared for the personal attacks, vilification and
abuse which, in some quarters, a difference of opinion seems to have provoked.
I shall continue, however, in the path I have marked out, regardless of the
sneers, denunciations, or super-arrogant airs of superior learning which some of
my captious critics have employed in the discussion of my views and opinions. I
believe the statements of fact which I have made to be correct and feel that my
conclusions are sound. Should time and circumstances permit I shall have more
to say on the Cryptic Rite at our next meeting, shattering, perhaps, another
idol or two and opening up a new vista with a broader horizon and higher mental
plane. Nothing is now to be gained by concealment or a blind adherence to old
beliefs or antiquated fictions. Let us fully, freely and fairly, investigate
the old canons for ourselves, with an abiding confidence in the apostolic
injunction that "the truth shall make us free."
Another contribution by Companion Warvelle (1907) is "The
German and French Traditions" which has been copied by nearly all the
correspondent writers.
Although printed in our 1908 proceedings they will well
bear reproduction in this paper with his other writings, from which we have
copied so free.
I presume there are few of you who at some time have not
seen or heard the old and persistent story of Joseph Myers' importation of the
Cryptic degrees. As the story goes, Myers brought the degrees from Berlin,
Pruska, and in the year 1781, or 1788, for the accounts differ, he deposited the
rituals in the Lodge of Perfection at Charleston and thereafter committed the
authority for their diffusion to the Chiefs of Sublime Masonry resident in that
city. It was not until about forty years after the alleged deposit, and not
until many years after the establishment of Grand Councils, that the Chiefs made
the facts known. Inasmuch as they were unable to produce the original rituals
or any evidence of Myers' authority in the matter, the Masonic students have
always regarded the statements as a sort of pipe dream on the part of the
Chiefs, and as something unworthy of credence.
I am inclined to believe that the story, to some extent at
least, rests on a knowledge of the practices of the early German lodges and the
coincidences found in the Select Master degree. Thus, from the earliest
descriptions of the Council chamber that have come down to us we find a
prescription of triangular tables, with a light on each angle, to be placed
before the officers in the East. Neither the ritual nor its accompanying
lectures furnish us with any very satisfactory explanation of this furniture.
In the absence of such explanations we can only conclude that it represents an
archaic survival, the original significance of which has been lost. But this
form of table, and arrangement of lights, was employed in the German lodges
during the first half of the Eighteenth century, and particularly is this true
of the lodges located at Berlin. From the fact, therefore, of the coincidence
of custom in the Berlin lodges and in the Select degree in America, it would be
an easy matter for a lively imagination to deraign a descent of the latter from
the former.
I have lately come across a little book published at
Sulzbach, Germany, in 1803. In this book the author, speaking of the initiation
of Prince William of Prussia by Frederick the Great in 1740, describes an old
and rare engraving in his possession.
He then describes the picture of which I venture a free
translation as follows:
"The King sits in the Master's chair. Before him is an
altar-shaped table upon which, in the form of a triangle, are placed three
burning tapers. Near them are laid a sword, a gavel and skull. At the left
hand of Frederick stands a warden. Before the table, without either sword or
hat (which two brethren are holding) stands Prince William taking the oath."
I do not profess to be an adept in the translation of
eighteenth century German but I think I have faithfully rendered the spirit of
the original. From the foregoing it will be seen that the East of the early
German lodges resembled in some respects the East of a Council of Select Masters
and it is from this circumstance, probably, that the Chiefs of the Sublime
Degrees at Charleston evolved the romance of Joseph Myers' importation of the
Rite. A very searching investigation a few years ago revealed the fact that the
Cryptic degrees are utterly unknown in Germany and, so far as could be
ascertained, had never been heard of in that country.
For many years the French tradition of Cryptic origins and
diffusion was received without question. Even such a Masonic scholar as the
late Josiah H. Drummond endorsed the stories, for there were two of them, and in
his published writings stated them as historic facts. Further investigation
subsequently induced him to discard his earlier opinions and to characterize the
legends as untrue, or, at least, as not proved. Many persons, however, still
cling to the old exploded fables and the pseudo historian still drives his
trade, as is apparent from the lucid expositions which from time to time appear
in the Masonic press.
One story is that Henry A. Francken, a Hebrew peddler of
eighteenth century high degree Masonry, in the year 1767, introduced the degrees
of the Cryptic Rite into the States of New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island
by the institution of Councils. As late as 1875 this story was generally
accepted as correct. Just how, or where, or when, Francken received his degrees
was never stated, but he was an Inspector General of the "Ineffable and Sublime"
degrees and as the Inspectors generally carried everything that any reasonable
person could ask for, so it was assumed that he came rightfully by the Cryptic
grades and had authority to sell them. Francken's stock in trade was supposed
to have been imported from France.
Another story was that Joseph Cerneau brought the degree of
Royal Master to the City of New York, and in the year 1807 established a Council
for its exploitation. Cerneau's authority was supposed to have been derived from
the Grand Consistory in France.
Both of these romances passed current as genuine Cryptic
history and were accepted by Mackey and other writers. And particularly were
they received by those who sought to trace the genealogy of the Cryptic degrees
through the Scottish Rite.
With respect to the first story there is not a scintilla of
evidence to show that either of the Cryptic degrees were in existence in 1767,
or that Francken ever heard of them, or that he ever conferred them. The whole
story seems to be a pure fabrication. It grew out of the fact that Francken
visited the City of New York in 1767, and while there conferred the degrees of
the Lodge of Perfection on two gentlemen from Albany. Subsequently he gave them
a warrant for the establishment of a lodge. The old records of these
transactions, at one time supposed to have been destroyed, have been recovered,
and there is not the slightest reference to the Cryptic degrees or a shadow of a
foundation for the oft repeated yarn of Francken's introduction of the Rite.
The other tale is equally destitute of truth. Cerneau was
a resident of New York in 1807, at which time a Council of Royal Master Masons
was organized and from this circumstance the imaginative historians deduced the
fact that he was the organizer. The old minutes of this Council were found a
few years ago and from them it appears that Cerneau had nothing to do with its
organization and that he was not even a member of the body.
But old myths die hard. The Scottish Rite historians are
loath to relinquish their long maintained hold on the genesis of the Cryptic
degrees, and notwithstanding that the falsity of their claims has been often
demonstrated they still continue to assert both the German and French traditions
in support of their contentions. From time to time, in his "historical Notes,"
and under other captions, Companion Warvelle has contributed much more on this
subject, all of which we would like to present for our Companions, but we are
reminded that paper and printer's ink cost money, and we will have to be content
by quoting the closing paragraph of one of his later "Notes."
"* * * Now what we want from the men whose views are not
'erroneous' is some tangible evidence, properly authenticated, to show the
conferring of the Royal Master's degree at any time prior to the year 1805, at
any place other than the city of New York, and by any other person than Thomas
Lownds. To show the conferring of the Select Master's degree at any time prior
to the year 1790, at any place other than the city of Baltimore, and by any
other person than Henry Wilmans. To show the conferring of the two degrees
combined into one system at any time prior to the year 1818, at any place other
than Hartford, Conn., and by any person other than Jeremy Cross. Will the
gentlemen who have the 'facts' please produce them?"
Your committee believe they have "culled" nearly all the
important data connected with the origin and the dissemination of the Cryptic
degrees and have presented the views of the most prominently known Masonic
students, historians and writers who have contributed to the history of the
degrees covering a century or more.
Of those dissenting from the Scottish Rite claim or theory,
Companion Schultz has devoted most of his research to the Select degree, while
Companion Warvelle seems to have made the tracing of the Royal Master's degree
his favourite study.
(4) See circular Sup. Council, S.M.J., Dec. 4, 1802. (5)
Pike's Dissection of a Manifests, p. 40. (6) Manifesto Sup. Council A.A.S.R.,
1802. See also Dalcho's Orations, Charleston, 1807. (7) Mackey says the degrees
were first introduced in 1783. See address to Grand Council S.C., 1870. (8) See
address to Grand Council of South Carolina, 1870. (9) Pro. Sup. Council S.M.J.,
1870. (10) See Reprint N.M.J., Vol. 1, Pt. I, pp. 212, 214. (11) "See
Constitutions N. M. J., 1860. (12) See Proceedings Columbian Council, p. 5.
(13) Ibid. (14) Cross purported to work under a commission of this kind and his
original grant of power was until very lately to be seen in New York. The
genuineness of this document has been questioned, however, and Bro. Drummond,
who caused a photographic copy to be taken and submitted to experts, now
pronounces the commission a forgery. Bro. Schultz, of Baltimore, after an
investigation is of the same opinion. (15) See records Columbian Council, p. 31
FOR THE MONTHLY LODGE MEETING
CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN NO. 38
Edited by Bro. H. L. Haywood
THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY FOR MONTHLY LODGE
MEETINGS AND STUDY CLUBS
FOUNDATION OF THE COURSE
THE Course of Study has for its foundation two sources of
Masonic information: THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. In another paragraph
is explained how the references to former issues of THE BUILDER and to Mackey's
Encyclopedia may be worked up as supplemental papers to exactly fit into each
installment of the Course with the papers by Brother Haywood.
MAIN OUTLINE:
The Course is divided into five principal divisions which
are in turn subdivided, as is shown below:
Division I. Ceremonial Masonry.
A. The Work of the Lodge.
B. The Lodge and the Candidate.
C. First Steps.
D. Second Steps.
E. Third Steps.
Division II. Symbolical Masonry.
A. Clothing.
B. Working Tools.
C. Furniture.
D. Architecture.
E. Geometry.
F. Signs.
G. Words.
H. Grips.
& |
